-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 183
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fixup algs contd 2 #495
fixup algs contd 2 #495
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This would be a step closer to fix the algorithm. We should merge this to get us on track soon.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I looked through too quickly. PR 495 and 498 are actually two approaches instead of improving on top of the other. I will comment on 498.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
index.bs
Outdated
@@ -859,7 +859,8 @@ When this method is invoked, the user agent MUST execute the following algorithm | |||
and |clientExtensions| as parameters. | |||
|
|||
Note: In this case, the [=[RP]=] did not supply a list of acceptable credential descriptors. Thus the | |||
authenticator is being asked to exercise any credential it may possess that is bound to the [=[RP]=]. | |||
authenticator is being asked to exercise any credential it may possess that is bound to | |||
the [=[RP]=] identified by |rpId|. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
s/identified/as identified/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thx Jeff for the clarification. If this is considered a standalone PR, I'd consider it approved.
can we go ahead and merge this given @rlin1's and @AngeloKai's reviews? thx. |
Presently, this (hopefully) fixes #480.
This also fixes #475 ("Level 1" editorial addition).
update 28-Jun-2017: this also (re-) fixes #268
Preview | Diff